国内外“教材评估”研究综述

1、文档来源为：从网络收集整理.word版本可编辑.欢迎下载支持Overview on Foreig n and Domestic Materials Evaluatio n1. In troduct ionThere are numerous studies on materials evaluation abroad and at home, and the number has tended to be on the rise as interest in the area has grown. In the West, Williams (1983), Van Els et al. (19

2、84), Cunningsworth (1984) and Hutchinson (2002) were the leading pioneers. In China, Qian Y uan (1995) introduced Hutchinson and Waters checklist of materials evaluawhich is the starting point of the discussions on materials, especially on materials evaluation or selection.2. Features of studies on

3、materials evaluation abroad and at homeComb ined with the represe ntatives and the latest among them, the features of these studies may be summarized as follows.2.1 The evaluati on process was described as several parts.The materials evaluati on process described by McDono ugh and Shaw (2004) can be

4、 charted as follows:Macro-evaluati on in appropriate / pote ntially appropriate (Exter nal)ExitTMicro-evaluati on in appropriate / appropriate adopt / select(Intern al)Exit1 TFigure 2.1 An overview of the materials evaluati on process (McD ono ugh and Shaw 2004: 66)As was illustrated, the process co

5、mprised two compleme ntary stages: the exter nal one and the internal one. At each stage, several detailed aspects were desig ned.The external evaluation stage examined the claims made for the materials by the author/publisher with respect to:the inten ded audie nee, the proficie ncy level, the con

6、text and prese ntati on of Ian guage items, whether the materials are the core or supplementary, the role and availability of a teachers bdbe, in clusi on of a vocabulary list/ in dex, the table of conten ts, the use of visuals and presentation, and the cultural specificity of the materials, the pro

7、vision of audio/video material and in clusi on of tests. (ibid.)As the central stage of their evaluation model, they claimed that it aimed to offer a general, brief overview of how materials had bee n orga ni zed from the outside (cover, i ntroduct ion, table of contents) (McDonough and Shaw 2004: 6

8、1).After the stage, it was suggested that evaluators should make a decisi on about the materials appropriate ness for adopti on /select ion purpose. If the materials proved to be pote ntially appropriate and worthy of a closer and more detailed inspection, then an internal evaluation would be contin

9、ued. Otherwise, the materials evaluation would come to the end.In the internal evaluation stage, evaluators were advised to examine the following points: “ the treatment and presentation of the skills, the sequencing and grading of the materials, the type of reading, listening, speaking and writing

10、materials contained in the materials, appropriacy of tests and exercises, self-study provision and teacher-learner balanceinuse of the materials (McDonough and Shaw 2004: 70).The essential of this stage was to “analyze the extent to which the aforementioned factors in the external evaluation stage a

11、ctually match up with the internal consistency and organization of the materials ”(McDonough and Shaw 2004: 67). The internal evaluation was more specific than the external one and it could give a comprehensive description of materials from a deep level.Finally, a comprehensive assessment, which McD

12、onough and Shaw called the overall evaluation, should be made regarding the suitability of materials and it included four factors: usability, generalizability, adaptability, and flexibility (McDonough and Shaw 2004: 70). Thus, there would be a conclusion about whether materials are suitable for spec

13、ified groups or individuals.Zhang Xuemei (2001) thought that the whole evaluation model was overall and clear, and the internal evaluation and the external one were closely related with each other. Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang (2006) argued that the division of the two stages tremendously simplified

14、the whole evaluation process. Consequently, it is quite flexible and convenient.Likewise, there were two phases in Breen and Candlin s Evaluation Guide (1987).Firstly, some preliminary questions were put forward on the usage of materials, particularly on their objectives and aims, their requirements

15、 on learners and teachers, and their functions as a classroom resource. More detailed questions under the above four items were provided. In the second phase, main questions were about the needs and interest of learners, their language learning methods, and the process of classroom teaching and lear

16、ning. (quoted in Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang 2006: 42-43)In contrast, Cheng Xiaotang (2002) divided the evaluation process into three stages (pre-use evaluation, in-use evaluation, post-use evaluation) and it could be internal or external.An internal evaluation focuses on the internal accountability

17、 of the materials, e.g. the theoretical assumptions behind the materials; the intended objectives and the extent to which the objectives have been realized; the justification of language selection and grading; the design of activities and tasks. An external evaluation examines the extent to which a

18、set of materials meets the needs of a particular group of learners, the syllabus, and the examination. (Cheng Xiaotang 2002: 70)From the above, it is seen that they complement one another and both are of interest.Hutch inson and Waters (1987) divided the evaluatio n process into four major steps:1)

19、Defining criteria;2) Subjective an alysis;3) Objective an alysis;4) Matchi ng (See Figure 2.2 for detail)Figure 2.2 Hutchinson and Waters Four Major Steps in Evaluation Process (Hutchinson and Waters 2002: 98)2.2 The evaluati on checklist was desig ned in various ways.A quick-refere nee checklist fo

20、r evaluati on and select ion was give n by Cunnin gsworth, in which eight main items were aims and approaches, design and organization, Ianguage content, skills, topic, methodology, teachers books, and practical considerations (Cunningsworth 2002: 3-4). Each of these items was subdivided into severa

21、l questi ons.Hutchinson and Waters elaborate checklist (2002) covered five aspects (audienee, aims, content, methodology, and other criteria) and had twenty-one subjective questions and other twenty-one objective ones. User Semands for materials were identified through subjective questions, and info

22、rmation about materials was collected through objective ones. At last, evaluators compared the two sides and judged the applicability of materials for a particular purpose. This approach was originally used in ESP course, but because of its easy operation and good validity, it is still widely applie

23、d in gen eral Ian guage course.Besides, Zhou Xuelin (1996) and McDonough and Shaw (2004) designed their own checklists for materials evaluati on, too. No matter which checklist it is, evaluators may refer to materials and answer the specific questions in it. Thus, Hutchinson and Waters (2002) dem on

24、 strated materials evaluati on is basically a match ing process (quoted in Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang 2006: 39).2.3 The evaluation guideline, principle and criterion were discussed.On the one hand, Cunningsworth presented four guidelines for evaluation, which work as a useful guide in approaching a

25、ny material evaluation exercise. They are:Guideline OneCoursebooks should correspond to learners needs. They should match the aims and objectives of the language-learning programme.Guideline TwoCoursebooks should reflect the uses (present or future) which learners will make of the language. Select c

26、oursebooks which will help to equip students to use language effectively for their own purposes.Guideline ThreeCoursebooks should take account of students needs as learners and should facilitate their learning processes, without dogmatically imposing a rigidmethod .Guideline FourCoursebooks should h

27、ave a clear role as a support for learning. Like teachers, they mediate between the target language and the learner.(Cunningsworth 2002: 15-17)On the other hand, in the light of domestic specific conditions, Cheng Xiaotang thought materials evaluation should follow two principles: effectiveness and

28、efficiency. The first one is to examine if a textbook is effective in satisfying learners needs; the second one is to examine if a textbook is more effective in this aspect than some alternative textbooks (Cheng Xiaotang 2002: 69). In addition, combined with college English teaching in China andRequ

29、irements (trial) , XuZhaoyang and Wang Zhifang (2007) summarized the criteria of textbook evaluation considering teaching environment, teaching objectives, learners, and teachers. Zhou Xuelin (1996) put forth a list of materials evaluation from six different aspects: (1) the relation between materia

30、ls and teaching theories, (2) the relation between materials and syllabuses, (3) the relation between materials and learners, (4) content, (5) design of exercises and (6) supplementary resources. Other researchers who have made great contribution in such an issue are Liu Daoyi (2004) and Sun Pinhua

31、(2006).2.4 The evaluation type and approach were categorized differently.According to the time that materials evaluation could take place, Cunningsworth (2002) divided it into three types: pre-use evaluation, in-use evaluation and post-use evaluation.McDonough and Shaw (2004) distinguished evaluatio

32、n for adoption from evaluation for adaptation. The former helped teachers quickly select proper materials, whereas the latter intended to encourage teachers to adapt materials so that they met the actual teaching needs.3文档收集于互联网，如有不妥请联系删除文档来源为 :从网络收集整理 .word 版本可编辑 .欢迎下载支持For Cheng Xiaotang (2002), m

33、aterials evaluation may be either ad hoc impressionistic evaluation or systematic evaluation. Intuitions, impressions and experience of using materials are the basis of an ad hoc impressionistic evaluation. Thus it is hardly scientific and comprehensive. A systematic evaluation, based on “specificat

34、ion of objectives, principles and procedures adopted or embedded in materials ”(Cheng Xiaotang 2002: 70), is winning popularity.2.5 It was proposed that different people participate in the evaluation process.Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang (2006) pointed out different materials evaluation systems focuse

35、d on different participants. For instance, in Cunningsworth s Evaluation Guidelines, the subjective judgment which came from evaluators was virtually reflected; in McDonough and Shaws Evaluation Model, teachers viewpoints and evaluators ones were combined; in Breen and Candlin s Evaluation Guide, th

36、e active participation of teachers and learners were welcomed.2.6 It was suggested that materials evaluation combine with materials design.In Breen and Candlin s Guide, they listed seven characteristics of materials design in the form of questions. Qiao Ailing (2002) proposed that materials evaluati

37、on should be conducted due to the macro-design and micro-design of materials. The macro-design consisted of the guiding principles (syllabus), the major framework (the internal language and knowledge system and the external information and structure system) and the layout of units. The syllabus must

38、 correspond to the objectives of the course and it determined the other two aspects. The micro-design of materials referred to the arrangement of every unit, such as contents and exercises.2.7 The theoretical foundation of traditional materials evaluation in the West was traced back to linguistic fi

39、eld.There was a consensus among Zhang Xuemei (2001), Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang (2006) that traditional materials evaluation systems were largely established on some linguistic theories, and they took Cunningsworth s Evaluation Guidelines, McDonough and Shaw s Evaluation Model and Breen and Candlin

40、 s Guide as an example. Cunningsworth s Evaluation Guidelines hypothesized that the language was a whole system which could be divided into much less items; McDonough and Shaw s Evaluation Model regarded materials as the medium in learning and it was greatly influenced by the Communicative Approach

41、in language teaching; Breen and Candlin s Guide considered materials as the means of promoting teaching and learning.2.8 The flaws of western evaluation theories and their practical application were criticized.For Cunningsworth s Evaluation Guidelines, it was considered that they were more comprehen

42、sive and systematic, however, to examine linguistic items in materials, as one of the most important tasks, was almost too overcomplicated to carry out on many occasions (Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang 2006: 41). For McDonough and Shaw s Evaluation Model, it overlooked some factors such as self-study,

43、self-test, learning styles and skills, classroom environment (Zhang Xuemei 2001: 63) and its checklist was so long that it wasted time and energy (Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang 2006: 41). In contrast, for Breen and Candlin s Guide, it attached importance to the learner-centered learning and evaluation

44、 (Zhang Xuemei 2001: 63; Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang 2006: 41). However, this kind of overemphasis may create many problems and moreover, the questions in its two phases are sometimes overlapping and easy to mix up if they are improperly used.2.9 Western materials evaluation systems were applied in

45、the practice of college English textbook evaluation at home.Although the current domestic studies of materials evaluation in ELT have been in preliminary phase (Xu Zhaoyang and Wang Zhifang 2007; Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang 2006; Qian Yuan 1995), there is still much room for development and improvem

46、ent in the future.After a detailed introduction and analysis about three influential textbook evaluation systems in the West, Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang (2006) summarized their common problems and advised that a possible solution employing quantitative analysis should be the utilization of computer

47、 technology and textbook corpus at home. Relative debates were explicit in the articles of Xia Jimei (2001) and Xu Feng (2004).In the past five years, there were some teachers and postgraduates who wrote their articles or dissertations on college English textbook evaluation such as Bian Shurong (200

48、5), Lenglin (2006), Liu Wei (2006), Tian Juan (2006), Tu Chuane and Wu Xiaoling (2006), Bai Yun (2007), Chi Hongbo (2007), Li Xiuju (2007), Wu Tao (2007), Zeng Rong (2007), Huang Rumin (2008), Wang Xiaoyan (2008), Zhang Fusheng (2008), Zhou Pingdi (2008), Li Aiqin and Ying Yashu (2009). The textbook

49、s they discussed and evaluated are College English (new) by Shanghai Foreign Language Educational Press (2001), NHCE published by Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press (2002), Listening and Speaking Series of Experiencing English by Higher Educational Press (2002), College English- Listening

50、and Speaking Course (Student s Book) (New Edition) by Shanghai Foreign Language Educational Press (2002), and New Essential College English by Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press (2005). The characteristics of their studies may be summarized as follows: (1) In theoretical construction, they

51、 all used domestic and foreign achievements for reference. (2) In instrument, questionnaire, interview, class observation and text corpus were encompassed, in other words, this was the integration of quantitative researches and qualitative researches. (3) In purpose, they were either to evaluate how

52、 well the materials correspond with CES (College English Syllabus), or Requirements (trial) , or the requirements of HVTE (Higher Vocational-Technical Education) English Course (trial), or to analyze and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the materials by applying the theoretical results in th

53、is field abroad and at home. （4） In essence, their evaluations were all a matching process.3. ConclusionAs is observed, “itis clear that coursebook assessment is fundamentally a subjective, rule-of-thumb activity, and that no neat formula, grid or system will ever provide a definite yardstick （”Shel

54、don 1988: 245）. Therefore, the practical operation of college English textbook evaluation has the apparently subjective nature.Bibliography1 Cunningsworth, Alan. Evaluating and Selecting ELT Teaching Materials M. London: Heinemann, 1984.2 Hutchinson, T, and Waters, A. English for Specific Purposes M. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002.3 McDonough, Jo, and Shaw, Christopher. Materials and Methods in ELT M. Beijing: Perking University Press, 2004.4 Sheldon, Leslie E. Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials J. ELTJ. 1988. 42, 4. pp. 237-246.5 Van E